Reality-Based Chat. Speak! Showing 801-850 of 1,199

[Dan]

When I was in college and tried to play the guitar and sing, people (except for my very tolerant girlfriend) would run from the room as soon as I started. I was only tolerated by my fraternity brothers when we sang in groups.

[Mary]

I guess we won't be forming a goodreads liberal singing group because I can't sing either, Dan. I have the husky, apparently somewhat melodic speaking voice of a gospel singer, so I've often been asked if I sing, occasionally by professional singers, but I can't carry a tune well. In fact, I'm probably the worst singer in my family. I could be a rapper (like my nephew), though, because I can talk really fast, and my enunciation is often poor, which seem to be the chief "talents" of rappers.

On another topic, did you notice the Durbin-McCain debate about Lynch yesterday? I was annoyed with Rachel and her guest (I think it was the New York Senator, but my memory is getting bad) who discussed why her appointment was being postponed a few days ago. I think Rachel wanted him to say it was racism, but he wouldn't. When Durbin finally said it, McCain, of course, went berserk. What other reason would they have for delaying her appointment when they can't stand Holder? Why wouldn't they delay justices or some other cabinet appointments? I wonder if they think Obama will eventually give up and nominate a white man to be attorney general the way he nominated John Kerry for Secretary of State after they made a fuss about Rice even before Obama had nominated her.

[Lisa]

I think the issue of racism is in how the Republican senators and congressmen view and treat Pres. Obama. They would have done this to any of his nominees.

By the way, I only sing in private. No one can stand to hear me.

[Dan]

I don't think McCain is a racist, but he is so resentful and jealous of Obama that it seems like it. But in his case it is personal, not racist. Apparently he didn't think a lot of Obama when he was a senator, and, of course, he absolutely hates the idea that Obama is President and he isn't. There also was bad blood between Rice and him, although I don't know what is was about.
I have no doubt that racism is very prevalent among the other Republican senators, reflecting the feelings of many in their base of supporters.
Maybe the Quakers don't sing because their ancestors had bad singing voices...

[Lisa]

Could be. I'm Jewish and I don't sing but one of my grandmothers had a beginning career before my father was born singing in the opera. Go figure. I obviously didn't inherit that gene.

[Mark]

Sorry, all, to have been out of commission briefly, but will endeavor to catch up, and have just posted the (conceivably irrelevant) April-May book selection poll, but be sure to vote early and fraudulently! As regards the matter of music, I enjoy the happy combination of perfect pitch and a perfectly awful voice, suitable for simulating the vocalizations of toads in gastric distress. I do like to compose, though: exasperatingly inane parodies of works by Gilbert & Sullivan, and when under surveillance, am pursued by a wandering minstrel eye.

[Lisa]

After living in Chicago all these years, I should be good at voting early and often. I looked at the list, but nothing really jumped out at me.

[Mary]

Lisa, I have Barbra Streisand (her duets CD) on my stereo right now, and I've heard (but not witnessed) that cantors are great singers, so I'm not surprised that some of your family members can sing. Dan has a cultural/religious excuse, but you and I were just unlucky. We are the exceptions that prove the rule (or counter the stereotypes).

McCain has an adopted black daughter (although she was adopted by his wife), so he's less racist than most of the white Senators of either party, but he has that "colorblind" need to deny racism that annoys me almost as much as overt racism does. McConnell is a racist jerk; even if his wife were black (instead of Asian) I would recognize his extreme racism. Racism is part of what's going on with Lynch, which is why she was chosen to hold hostage instead of the new Secretary of Defense (a white man), who was promptly confirmed. Obviously, both the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General are very important cabinet members, but Hagel would have stayed on until that guy was confirmed just as Holder has. And the Republicans didn't hate Hagel, a fellow Republican, as much as they hate Holder, who is more liberal than his replacement will be. What amazes me is their willingness to treat a black woman with such disrespect. Before Obama was elected, sensible (of course, that qualifier might exclude many current Republicans), educated white folks were more careful how they treated black people; their racism was more subtle. Now they think they can do anything and get away with it by feigning indignation when they are accused of what should be obvious--they're pissed that Obama outplayed them by nominating another black person to replace Holder. Trust me, folks, Loretta Lynch's race (not her gender) has everything to do with why McConnell is holding her nomination hostage, with the consent and approval of many of his fellow Republicans, and McCain knows that unless he's even crazier than I think he is. He just doesn't want the Republicans' racism to be openly discussed.

[Mark]

I think you're right, Mary, that there's been a very discernible shift in the atmosphere, and Republicans (and some other people) no longer feel constrained to occult or disguise their racism. There may still be a social stigma, but not within their own bubble, and they either don't perceive it or actively choose to ignore it. There are almost no "sensible" people in their party, and so they're impervious to social disapprobation.

McCain would have hated any Democrat who defeated him. He clearly has severe anger management problems plausibly associated with his experience of torture, and I personally think it was irresponsible for him, knowing that, to run for an office in which he would have had access to nuclear weapons. But probable PTSD aside -- and it's the *only* thing about McCain that elicits any sympathy from me, at all -- I *do* believe he hates Obama much more intensely for "DHWB" (defeating him while black), and his mind is compartmentalized: his adopted daughter doesn't figure into the equation. PTSD might excuse anger, but it certainly doesn't excuse racist anger: the racism had to be there antecedently. He wasn't, after all, tortured by black people. And as for McConnell, as far as I'm concerned, he might as well be wearing a hood. There is now an open atmosphere of express racism in the Republican party -- both because many or most of their politicians are and have always been (though less overtly) seriously racist, and because their constituency eats it up. They actually derive political benefit from exhibiting it and attacking Lynch (ironic conflation of verb and object) like a pack of enraged hyenas (from which I would not really distinguish them, except that wildlife enthusiasts might appropriately protest that I'd been treating hyenas invidiously in making the comparison).

And the Republicans *do* have an algorithm:

1) behave outrageously (in many ways, but especially in exhibiting overt racism), daring Democrats to call them on it
2) have dramatic attacks of the vapors and swoon all over the place on Fox News (and everywhere else), exhibiting intense feigned indignation and anger (which is not feigned, because they are the party of the anger management-challenged), when Democrats do call them on it
3) rinse and repeat

I have sympathy for McCain's apparent psychological problems (and how could a person with unimpaired judgment pick Sarah Palin as a running mate, and how could a victim of torture not have psychological problems?), but those problems in no way excuse his racism (even if clearly less virulent than that of most Republicans), and he should have known better than to run for president.

[Lisa]

You're probably both right Mary and Mark. But isn't it illogical to hold up Lynch's confirmation if it means that Holder will stay on considering that they hate Holder?

[Mark]

Lisa wrote: "You're probably both right Mary and Mark. But isn't it illogical to hold up Lynch's confirmation if it means that Holder will stay on considering that they hate Holder?"

I think their calculus, Lisa, is that the political advantage of expressing savage contempt for Obama outweighs any marginal theoretical disadvantage that accrues from retaining a slightly more liberal attorney general for a while longer. (And to them, I suspect, all black Democrats are, like Tolstoy's happy families, indistinguishable, and equally loathsome to the base of racist lunatics to whom they're pandering. They will confer the "blessing" of honorary "whiteness" only on egregious turncoats who've consented to put a black face on Republican racism and their jehad against the poor -- not that I'm thinking of any particular supreme court justice, mind you.)

[Mark]

Dan wrote: " Back in the late 1960s when I was working for United Press International in Baltimore and responsible for both news and sales, I got a call from the CIA. I had no idea what to charge for the service so I went up the chain of command. A few days later I got a message from the President of UPI, "tell those sons of bitches that the cost is $5,000 a week."..."

Dan, did UPI have a special hotline to hell through which they (the CIA) were able to reach you, or did they have to resort to demonic "remote viewing?" :) :) In any case, though I'd prefer he'd said "five million dollars a week," I truly wish I could express my profuse gratitude to your erstwhile president for the "sons of bitches" part...

[Beverly]

Mark wrote: "Don't read this first, but USA Today reports that the home city and state of the two expelled SAE "ringleaders" was the same, and YOU get to guess! I'm sure you'll all be astonished to learn the t..."

Dallas was my main guess too.

[Beverly]

Ever feel like you just want to stir up some mischief and sit back and watch what happens? I just had a fantasy whereby some Occupy Wall Street types or some Union members would picket Scott Walker campaign rallies with French-sounding signs. You know, the oldie but goodies like "Egalite," "Fraternite" etc. Wanna see what Wall Street types would do with the fear of god in them? I'd buy a ticket!

[Mark]

Beverly wrote: "Ever feel like you just want to stir up some mischief and sit back and watch what happens? I just had a fantasy whereby some Occupy Wall Street types or some Union members would picket Scott Walker..."

I think it would make a great premise for a new graphic novel, Beverly, which you could issue in a bilingual edition. :) You could call it "Moi et toi," or perhaps "La vache de Wisconsin qui ne rit pas." I harbor some concern, though, that Walker's lack of familiarity with all French (and most English) words might cause him to interpret "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!" as meaning "your elephant is double-parked," and doubtless, he thinks the significance of 1789 is that it was two years after the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, but just before the dinosaurs died off. Or perhaps the price of a hunk of Brie. My general feeling is that he probably thinks "the French Revolution" is what a hotdog in a croissant undergoes in a rôtisserie...

[Beverly]

He'd probably just protest about how he doesn't habla espanol and use the occasion to advocate for "English only" and a wall along the border.

[Mary]

Lisa, of course, it's illogical for them to block Lynch, who is more conservative than the hated Holder, but racism is illogical. Remember my insight after dealing with my mother? Racism is a vile form of dementia. It was illogical for the white masters to kill their slaves who were valuable property, and it was illogical (although somewhat profitable) for them to have children with their female slaves because the children became slaves, but they did it anyway. These crazy Republicans have shown that they are willing to hurt the country in order to destroy this half-black President. That's illogical and unpatriotic, but that's how racism works.

But it isn't just about racism. Yes, McCain hates Obama, probably almost as much as he hates his torturers, because he will be forever known as the white man who lost to the first black President. Mitt Romney will be the other white man who lost to this black President. Both Democrats, including the Clintons, and Republicans know that Obama's place in history is secure, even if he were the worst President ever, as some try to argue he is, because he was the first black President. I just read David Sedaris's book LET'S EXPLORE DIABETES WITH OWLS; he lives in Europe (mainly, England and France), and he wrote about how excited the Europeans were when Obama was first elected. He said before the election the Europeans claimed Obama would not win because Americans were too racist; after the election, he said, whenever the Europeans heard his accent, they would excitedly yell, "Obama!" Sedaris, who is humorous, said he grew so tired of their excitement over Obama that he wanted to say to them, "Elect your own black President!" When we finally elect a woman, we will just be catching up to many other countries, including Germany and England, but America is the first predominantly white country to elect a non-white leader. That's BIG, making Obama BIG around the world, and all of these ambitious politicians know it, which is why even many of the Democrats secretly are jealous of Obama and can't stand him. He's also not exactly a warm, fuzzy, people-pleaser like Clinton and GW Bush. He's only slightly warmer than Gore and Bush Senior.

Beverly, I wish the Occupy Wall Street types and BlackLivesMatter types were more like the Tea Party types. I wish they would vote and elect candidates instead of just protesting. I have to keep reminding the liberals that the Civil Rights Act became law, not because of what King did (he just applied the pressure) but because of what my second favorite President, LBJ, did with some help from moderate Republicans, who existed in the sixties. Most people in my generation like Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you" speech, but I prefer LBJ's "we shall overcome" speech. Protesting is good, but voting is better.

[Mark]

Beverly wrote: "He'd probably just protest about how he doesn't habla espanol and use the occasion to advocate for "English only" and a wall along the border."

Reminds me of that "Farside" cartoons in which three scientists are standing or sitting beside a tank full of dolphins, making notes on a chalkboard to record the noises they make, and one of them says, confusedly, "Matthews - we're getting another of those strange 'aw blah es span yol' noises." (The Walker reaction to non-English -- and probably to literate English, as well. He apparently doesn't have a college degree - but who needs all those word thingies, and the perplexing rectangular objects that contain them?)

[Mark]

Mary wrote: " Beverly, I wish the Occupy Wall Street types and BlackLivesMatter types were more like the Tea Party types. I wish they would vote and elect candidates instead of just protesting."

Mary, I emphatically wish they'd vote, too -- I wish liberals were compulsively moved to do so in the way that conservative zombies are, as though summoned by the Morlocks to the polling places via an inaudible siren emanating from Fox News. I'm not sure the problem is entirely the less reliable voting reflex of liberals, though: partly, it's just that there are fewer of us. I'd expect at least the people sufficiently motivated to have participated in Occupy Wall Street and BlackLivesMatter to have turned out, though. (Personally, I'd rather see Wall Street telekinetically transported to another planet than occupied, though. A planet in a galaxy too far away for them to invade us, would be a further stipulation. Also, the planet would have to be "occupied" by Brobdingnagian velociraptors with a voracious appetite for Randian objectivists -- so the teleportees would have instantly to renounce capitalism. I like to make my quixotic fantasies loophole-proof, otherwise the genies will always take advantage.)

[Dan]

The other day I briefly mentioned my theory that it isn't the real government, the day to day government, that people hate. It is the political government, the Congress, the President, etc. Well, it turns out my theory isn't exactly original. There is an entire website devoted to this idea and a book written in conjunction with the website, both done by a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College. It is worth looking at: http://www.governmentisgood.com/

I bought a Kindle edition of his book and starting reading it this weekend.

[Mary]

I don't have Kindle, Dan; is that book available in bookstores, or can it be ordered? If so, maybe we should add it to our April or May poll for books to read. I don't usually participate in the Book Club because I don't read many political books, but that one might be worth reading.

I've definitely made one of these points before and probably both of them, but both seniors and teachers like to repeat their points, so I have two excuses. There is a direct connection between the failure of Democratic-leaning voters to vote, especially in the midterm elections, and the demonization of government. There is also a racist and classist element to the Republicans' anti-government, let's cut government movements. The programs that are demonized are those that help the poor and nonwhites. The Republicans don't mind, for instance, when governments try to regulate what a woman does with her body. And, except for a few libertarians like Rand Paul, they are not against the drug laws that jail so many black, brown, and poor people.

Republicans and anyone else familiar with American socio-political history also realize that the way many Americans, especially nonwhite Americans with only high school educations, moved into the middle class was through (federal, state, county, and city) government jobs. When we cut government jobs, we drop those people back below the poverty line, and we prevent others like them from moving into the middle class. Walker's whole presidential campaign is based on his fight against government unions, which is why he is so popular in the Republican party. Christie at one point was also popular because of how he handled those unions.

[Dan]

The book is on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Government-Is-G...

It is a self-published book and probably never was in retail stores, and it is three years old now. It also is available used on abebooks.com: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Searc...

[Mark]

Mary wrote: " There is a direct connection between the failure of Democratic-leaning voters to vote, especially in the midterm elections, and the demonization of government. There is also a racist and classist element to the Republicans' anti-government, let's cut government movements."

I couldn't agree more emphatically, Mary, and I think that's exactly why the Republicans have so determinedly pushed that particular toxic meme through every means imaginable. It happens conveniently to coincide with their utterly disingenuous "small-government" mantra (in which they don't remotely believe, because as you say, they want government in bedrooms and controlling women's bodies -- and doling out huge contracts and concessions to their plutocratic overlords), but that "happy" coincidence is irrelevant: they'll use whatever works to destroy unions and advance their agenda, and the one mistake that Democrats make who do understand this is unintentionally to legitimize their narrative by even acknowledging that a "small versus large government" argument exists. When we defend ourselves by saying, "no, government is actually good; the Republicans are only arguably right about politicians," then we have undermined ourselves by accepting the premise that there is such an argument. It is not, and has never been, about that. I believe that when we say, "government is good," (even though that's indisputably true), we're buying into the narrative, and we must not do that. We have to find another way of framing the argument -- even a specious or irrelevant one, provided only that it engages people's visceral instincts -- because otherwise, we're playing their game, on their court, and our people (who persist in resorting to reason) understand memes and mind control much less well than they do.

[Mary]

Thanks, Dan. I ordered the paperback from Amazon (I think; I've only dealt with them as a writer receiving free copies, but I do have an account). I need some new arguments to counter the anti-government rhetoric that comes not only from conservatives but also from our "base," especially young black males. Mainly, I make the point that we shouldn't support politicians who think government is the problem. I worked in education because I thought it was a solution, not the problem. But liberals tend to respond to the demonization of government by dropping out, not voting, turning our democracy into a plutocracy.

Mark, you're right that we shouldn't be too defensive in our response to the demonization of government. We need to be aggressively positive. That's why I push back hard against any suggestions that things are so much worse now. Things are better not only because blacks and women can vote, and gays can marry but also because old people have Medicare and Social Security, and working-class people have sick leave and paid vacations. There are still plenty of problems, some of them old, some of them new, but things are better in the 21st Century than they were in the 20th just as they were better in the 20th than they were in the 19th. Even the politicians are probably just as good, if not better. I'm a big fan of Lincoln, and it was probably harder to be the first President of a new country than the first black President of a powerful country, so hooray for Washington, but most of those so-called founding fathers were jerks. I think the people who are arguing that Obama is the best President ever are being too defensive in their response to the racists who say he's the worst. But he has been impressive, the best in my lifetime, and Clinton's problems with Lewinsky were not as bad as Thomas Jefferson's sexual exploits with his slave(s), so we've had two very good recent Democratic Presidents. Carter was a weak President, but he may be the best former President we've had (certainly in my lifetime). He's not out trying to make money by giving speeches; he's trying to change the world as a still-active, very senior citizen.

To the people who say how is that "hope and change" thing going, I say, "Quite nicely thank you." And to the people who claim Obama is destroying America, I say, "You're right; he's destroying the old America, where only white men ruled, and good riddance to it. I like this new America."

[Beverly]

Anybody else notice the "date" and "newest" buttons here return error messages? All I can see are msgs from 2014.

[Beverly]

Mary wrote: "Thanks, Dan. I ordered the paperback from Amazon (I think; I've only dealt with them as a writer receiving free copies, but I do have an account). I need some new arguments to counter the anti-go..."

I think it's less about "destroying America" and all about destroying their OWNERSHIP of America. Since they no longer get to decide who's an American and rule over everyone else with their own sub-culture, they see apocalypse. The rest of us see the first rosy fingers of a sunrise.

[Mark]

Beverly wrote: "Mary wrote: "Thanks, Dan. I ordered the paperback from Amazon (I think; I've only dealt with them as a writer receiving free copies, but I do have an account). I need some new arguments to counte..."

Beverly,

Have been under the weather, so sorry not to have responded sooner. I think you're absolutely right that, in the view of the plutocracy, "all your everything are belong to us," so naturally, they'd view any attempt to staunch the genocidal flow of blood from the veins of all other Americans into their Cayman Islands bank accounts as "the destruction of America." (Since, from their standpoint, "America" consists of about two thousand people, and everybody else is part of their private economic blood bank and wholly expendable.) But whereas the plutocrats do believe this, I think the real reason for their relentless promotion of that meme (that liberals -- which includes anybody to the left of Ann Coulter -- are "destroying America") is that their base positively loves to hate and anathematize all non-wingnuts as unpatriotic, anti-American destroyers of all that is good and holy (like racism, misogyny, homophobia, starvation of the poor and deranged, jingoistic militarism). Apropos of which, comes the rather uniquely evil and psychotic behavior of Gov. Mike Pence of Indiania (who has just signed a bill legalizing discrimination against LGBT people everywhere in the state of Indiana -- presumably, in a long-shot attempt to energize right-wing lunatics to support his bid for the Republican presidential nomination -- since this is a bill so retrograde, bigoted and blatantly hateful that even AZ. Gov. Jan Brewer refused to sign a similar one.)

Anyway, here's the NYT's report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/...

and several other reactions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/27/news/...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03...

(For anyone who may not have seen it, Donegal has initiated a thread on this subject, here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/....)

[Mary]

Beverly, most of us have trouble adjusting to change, and let's face it, there have been some major changes (gay marriage, a half-black President, black and female Secretaries of State and Attorney Generals) lately. But you're right, these conservatives want to hold on to "their" America, the one where mostly white (straight) men ruled.

Mark, I was surprised to hear from Rachel that Pence is the man the Republicans secretly want to run. Why in the world would that be? Indiana doesn't have that many electoral votes, and he seems to be just as crazy as Ted Cruz. What does he have that Santorum, Cruz, and the other more-right-wing-than-Jeb candidates don't have?

[Mark]

Mary wrote: " Pence is the man the Republicans secretly want to run. Why in the world would that be?.. ."

Mary, I don't think Pence actually is, but there's a faction looking to escape the inevitability of Bush (because of his insufficiently flagrant dementia) that I believe Pence thinks might look upon his candidacy with favor -- especially now that he's managed to "out-bigot" virtually everyone else (at least, in a highly visible and tangible way), though I can think of no Republican, off hand, who isn't a relatively flagrant racist, misogynistic and homophobic lunatic (if not in terms of engrained personal attitudes, at least in virtue of willingness to pander to that constituency).

[Dan]

I think Rachel Maddow said something the other night about Pence being the secret favorite. However, he is significantly duller than Mitt Romney with no charisma at all. He was one of the Republicans picked to do a rebuttal to one of Obama's State of the Union speeches a few years ago and his performance was so dull that it killed his chances then of being taken seriously. Now that he has signed this bill, he has eliminated whatever tiny chance he might have had.

The only things Republicans seem to be able to get done are horrible pieces of legislation at the state level in states where they are dominant. There now are so many extremist, and incredibly ignorant, Republicans holding public office across the country that it is hard to believe they can continue in power for any length of time.

But it is up to the Democrats to offer real alternatives.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "But it is up to the Democrats to offer real alternatives. ..."

Dan, I think there's virtually no Democrat alive, with or without an agenda, who wouldn't constitute an immeasurably more desirable alternative. The alternative to destroying the country is not to destroy the country: it doesn't even require much of an agenda. If you have a deranged arsonist running around burning down houses, then a good alternative would be anyone who wasn't a deranged arsonist. There are plenty of Democrats who aren't deranged arsonists with flamethrowers, so the Democrats are, ipso facto, offering "an alternative," no matter what they do and no matter whom they run. The problem is that there are so many lunatic cretins out there who apparently love to watch the flames, and will vote for the Grand Old Pyromaniacs Party.

[Dan]

When Democrats vote for trade deals, or to help the banks but not the homeowners, they don't look a lot different to many voters from the Republicans. Voting decisions by large numbers of people often come down to just one or two things. I think many of the things we find offensive are just noise to the average voter and they tune it out. Most don't watch the news. Even moderately rated entertainment programs vastly outdraw the highest rated news programs.

Bill O'Reilly may have the largest audience in cable news, but it still is small. On a good night Rachel is drawing a half million or so. That's out of maybe 100 million or more households.

Many nights there are more people on the Internet than watching television. Netflix now is about a third of the total traffic on the Internet.

It is going to take a sustained, long-term campaign focused on a few key issues to turn things around. And it is going to take better candidates than the Democrats have been running in many states. Massachusetts and Maryland - about the two bluest states - both have Republican governors because the Democrats had lousy candidates. Fortunately the people in those states are smart enough not to elect Republican legislatures.
Democrats who worry about the deficit or inflation are DINOs. They fall right into the Republican trap. Republicans don't give a damn about deficits, or the national debt, but they use both to gut progressive programs.
We can't have a fast-tracked TPP voted for by any Democrats. It is shameful that Obama is pushing this, but at least he's not running again. Every other Democrat should get as far away from this as possible. It is a timebomb.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "When Democrats vote for trade deals, or to help the banks but not the homeowners, they don't look a lot different to many voters from the Republicans. Voting decisions by large numbers of people of..."

Dan, I emphatically agree with you that DINOs are an immense problem, and even the Democrats I've liked best have too often promoted pernicious policies like the trade deals you've mentioned. Truthfully, I am far to the left of both sides of the aisle, so I am not going to be rhapsodically happy with the whole constellation of policies of any mainstream politician (though Bernie Sanders usually pleases me) -- but, generally speaking, I assume they're all beholden to powerful interests with agendas inimical to the welfare of most Americans (because, obviously, that's the price of admission to the game). It's just that we're immured in this two-party system, so one is constrained to choose the less pernicious side. I really agree with everything you've said: I suppose what I was reacting to in my earlier post, though, was just the last line, which I thought was (very unintentionally) echoing the Republican meme that "Democrats have no real alternatives" (or, more typically, "no ideas," or whatever). And since that meme has been so effective for the Repubs, I have an instinctive aversion reaction whenever I hear anything that remotely suggests it -- even if out of context, and even if obviously unintentionally. It's certainly true (as you say) that Democrats have had some lousy candidates, but I don't know whether it's the quality of our candidates that has been so much determinative of outcomes as the quality of our messaging. We don't push memes or push emotional buttons nearly so well as the Repubs. (Of course, the "quality" they most manifestly lack is that of "mercy" -- theirs is sufficiently "strained" to induce a hernia -- but voters, regrettably, are rarely strongly moved by empathy, or revulsed -- as I think the participants in this group are -- by its overwhelmingly conspicuous absence.)

[Dan]

I may do some rewriting of the section of my book that deals with how progressives gain control of the government. However, the general emphasis will be the same. The primary message of progressive Democrats should be to show the people that the things they like about government were brought to them by progressives, and were opposed - and still are opposed - by Republicans. It really is a simple message that Democrats have forgotten. They got intimidated by Reagan and can't remember back any further when there were Democrats who should be heroes.
Since almost no one knows any history anymore, progressives have to teach it. What made America great - what propelled your parents and grandparents into the middle class - were progressive programs and actions. That coupled with new programs that are similar is what progressive Democrats should be pushing.
We have to get the people who say they hate government to start separating politics from government. If we can do that, then we can then change their minds about the politics.

[Mary]

Good news, Dan, Mark, and anyone else looking for an alternative: My dark horse for 2016, Martin O'Malley, finally got some national exposure. He was featured on "This Week with George S," and I noticed that his comment about dynasties is being featured on the Internet. I thought he did a good job (but you guys can check out the clip), although he seemed to talk more slowly when discussing Iran and terrorism. The problem is the very quality that made me like him as a safe 2016 Democrat who will quiet down the crazy Tea Partiers will make him harder to elect. His picture should be in the dictionary beside the word "bland." He doesn't have any more charisma than Pence does, Dan. In fact, I'm not sure I could tell them apart if I had to pick out one of their pictures in a lineup. I also would have trouble distinguishing O'Malley from my mother's doctor, and the only reason I can tell him apart from my former neighbor is that I know my neighbor really well. He needs Olympia's cousin's (our 1988 candidate) thick eyebrows, Nixon's nose, Jimmy Carter's accent, or his (or Edwards) hair, something to set him apart.

You know, Obama wasn't really the rhetorical powerhouse in 2007-8 that he was later given credit for being. He gave a great speech at the 2004 convention, another great speech about race in 2007, and then another one later in 2007 at some dinner (maybe in Iowa). But he was seen as boring, "professorial," during most of the 2007-8 campaign. He wasn't even a great debater. Clinton, Edwards, and Biden were all better. What he had going for him was his color, his name, and his story. O'Malley is in a band, but he needs something else to grab our attention.

Still, at least we are going to have a primary, everybody. O'Malley is clearly entering the race, and his platform will be supporting Obama's policies except he will raise wages, which he did in Maryland. He also claims to have done really well with the schools. Now we need Jim Webb to come in on the right, Sanders to the left of O'Malley, and we have a race.

[Dan]

Maryland's public school system is very good in some areas and mediocre in others. It depends on where you live. However, tuition in the university system, like all of them, has been increasing, although I think it still below some state systems, like California's.

After two years in the public school system, we sent our daughter (IQ 150+ but ADD) to private schools because the public schools pretty much took a one size fits all approach. The Baltimore area has a number of terrific private schools that are better than the best of the public schools and send many kids to the Ivy League.

However, my wife went to public schools - one of the best public high schools - and she was very well prepared for an intense college program.

Webb appears to be in the race but I have no idea why. I didn't think much of him as a senator and I wasn't crazy about his Vietnam War novel. I think Sanders is not going to run. I think he is terribly frustrated, but also realistic.

I read about a third of Warren's book last night. I might finish it tonight. I can see why she says she doesn't want to run for President. She really isn't a politician. She doesn't have the personal ambition.

I think there is one way she could be convinced to run for President, but I don't think it can be done. If it could be shown to her that if she ran, the Democrats also would win control of both houses of Congress, it might convince her. She then would have some confidence she could accomplish something.

What is so clear in her book is that accomplishing something is just about the most important thing to her. It is not the exercise, or the process. And it isn't the power of office. It is having the power or position to do something. Being President right now, with the Republicans in control of Congress isn't something that appeals to her. Actually staying in the Senate where she might be successful blocking the Republicans probably is more appealing.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "Good news, Dan, Mark, and anyone else looking for an alternative: My dark horse for 2016, Martin O'Malley, finally got some national exposure. He was featured on "This Week with George S," and I ..."

O'Malley may be "bland," but at least he (or his staff) got the slogan and the meme exactly right: "the presidency is not some crown to be passed between two families." So that is, at least, a good start, and ought to be the mantra taken up by any candidate challenging Hillary for the nomination.

If you're right, Dan, that a conceivable means by which Warren might be induced to reconsider would be to persuade her that her candidacy might facilitate the recapture of the Senate by the Democrats (I think one would have to be delusional to think that the House could be recaptured, under any circumstances, but maybe Warren could be induced to embrace the delusion), then certainly, somebody ought to be bombarding her with every kind of argument to that effect. I'm still agnostic on the issue of whether Warren's greater potential to mobilize the base wouldn't be overborne by her greater vulnerability to vile, insanely misogynistic attacks (in contemplating the choice of Warren vs. O'Malley), but I'd like, in any case, to see an actual race on the Democratic side.

Dan, your story of your daughter's experience revived my intense resentment about the status of the public schools in most of the country. You could afford to provide your daughter with an escape hatch (and I'm immensely glad of it) from the "one-size-fits-all" stultifying pedagogical hell of many of the public schools, but most people can't, and I'm still incensed at having had to endure 12 torturous and utterly wasted years. But I'm autodidactic by nature, and so wasn't rendered illiterate. The current state of the system, though, is immeasurably worse -- for average, gifted and special needs students, alike -- than when I was in school, and Republicans seem determined even further to undermine it (if that were possible), so I reserve my real rage for the systematic lobotomization, across-the-board, of the current and forthcoming generations. (And since Republicans succeed in getting themselves elected, I suppose that's proof, ipso facto, that the last two generations have been irremediably cognitively damaged.)

[Darlene]

Dan, I also read Elizabeth Warren's book and I agree with you. She is NOT a politician and I don't think she ever wanted to be. It seemed to me that she ultimately ran for the Massachusetts Senate seat when she was not permitted to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which was her brainchild. She is VERY passionate about this one particular issue and I think she feels that being a Senator allows her some say in what laws pass regarding this issue. Or from what I learned from her fight over strengthening the bankruptcy laws, which she ultimately lost… she learned that sometimes the best you can hope for is to put off a disaster until a later date!! I know… that doesn't sound great but it seems she learned that is how things work in Washington. I would love for her to run but I really believe she means it when she says she will not. And I don't think anyone can possibly convince her that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress.. not with a straight face anyway. The Republicans have such a HUGE majority and with the gerrymandering that has been done, I really don't see much of a way for them to regain control. Perhaps the Senate…. but the House has been and I think will continue to be a huge problem. They are completely non-functioning. Just my opinion, of course.

[Mary]

I also agree that Elizabeth is not a politician. She was talked into running for the Senate, but she's too smart to be talked into running for President just because she can win. The President has to focus on more than one issue, and Elizabeth knows that.

I'm not a fan of Jim Webb and would certainly vote for Hillary over him, but I think we need enough candidates so that we can get some attention during the primaries. What helped us win so convincingly in 2008 (besides the sinking economy and McCain's cluelessness in that area) was the long, exciting primary contest between Hillary and Obama. Many more Democrats registered and voted because the race was exciting. The primaries won't be as exciting this time; they may never be that exciting again. But if Hillary is our candidate after Iowa or New Hampshire, we will have more trouble winning the White House and the Senate.

[Dan]

One of the things I really like about Warren is that she loves dogs. It made me sad to read about her dogs dying as I have been through that several times and before long may go through it again. They are special creatures, greatly underestimated. I tend to be wary of people who don't like them.

[Dan]

I have chapters posted from the two books of mine that are not yet published.
From Do What Works and Call it Capitalism:
http://progressiveamericanthought.blo...

From The Blue Girl Murders
http://danriker.blogspot.com/2015/03/...

At least two more chapters from The Blue Girl Murders will be posted in the coming days.

The giveaway contest for A Light Not of This World ends on Thursday: https://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/sh...

[Darlene]

Dan wrote: "One of the things I really like about Warren is that she loves dogs. It made me sad to read about her dogs dying as I have been through that several times and before long may go through it again. T..."

I can relate to that too, Dan.. especially when she said she told her husband she didn't want another dog because she couldn't take another broken heart… and yet, yes, they got another dog!! I agree with you… I never trust people who don't like animals!!

[Mary]

The beauty of America, Dan and Darlene, is that we are a culturally diverse country, and so we respond to books, people, and even pets quite differently. I don't want to gross anyone out because I know I can be grossed out by the thought of what other people eat, even though I used to love chitterlings, which are hog's intestines, but I'm sure you know that animals some cultures see as pets are seen as food in other cultures, and there are probably people around the world who don't trust Americans because we eat cows and pigs.

I haven't read Warren's book, but I see the dog story as an indicator that she might be more of a politician than I realized. The problem I have with politicians' books in general, even when they are not being used to launch a campaign, is that they tend to be more spin than substance. I like books that show the writers' warts, and not fake warts that are really strengths, but real warts. One of my favorite Obama moments in the 2008 campaign was when he responded to a question about his flaws by indicating that he was kind of absent-minded, not good with keeping up with papers. Now that's hardly a terrible flaw. He didn't say he hated dogs or was cold and detached. But every other Democratic candidate listed a flaw that was really a strength. I think one person said he or she (it could have been Hillary) cared too much. After the debate, Obama said he should have claimed that he always helped old women to cross the street or something like that.

Warren's dog story is like Bush's fun with Barney antics. Even people who are not that into dogs will not criticize a politician for loving his or her dog.

I think there are certain values that we all should hold, like we shouldn't neglect or abuse either animals or people. But I certainly understand why some people would be afraid of dogs. If a person was mauled by a dog as a child or if she saw someone killed by a dog, for instance, she might fear dogs or at least certain kinds of dogs. My attitude toward dogs is more cultural (with a bit of race and class). I joked about being racist toward dogs with one of my friends because I'm not too fond of her big black dog but love the little fluffy white ones. My problem with big dogs, especially German Shepherds, or as we used to call them "police dogs," is clearly related to what I saw in the sixties during the civil rights protests.

I also spent time in my youth living with privileged white people and their pampered pets. Dan, I don't link because I'm technologically illiterate (one of my less obnoxious flaws), but the first chapter of my memoir is part of the free Amazon sample, and in that chapter I mention this rich white woman (she lived in Highland Park, Illinois) who worked my mother like a mule, even requiring her to pull back the bed covers for the whole family at night. This woman had two pampered dogs. Now I preferred the dogs to her and her husband, but certainly preferred most other people I knew, including my mother, to the dogs. When I was returning to Kentucky after spending a few weeks in that beautiful but seemingly loveless (except for the dogs) house, leaving my mother behind to work for these horrible, lazy, cold people, this rich woman asked me if I would miss her dogs and was annoyed when I said, "No." I was equally annoyed that this cold Wicked Witch of the Midwest thought her dogs were more important than my mother or me. I was a 13-year-old girl who was leaving her mother in Illinois to return to Kentucky, and the only question this witch could ask me was would I miss her dogs? By the way, I think she said only two other things to me during the six weeks or so that I lived in her house, sleeping in the bed with my mother and mostly staying in the kitchen and my mother's room.

I understand people who say they prefer their dogs to people or trust their dogs more than they do people. Dogs are generally more loving and loyal than people. But I think we should treat humans at least as well as we treat animals. And I detest people who don't realize that. So if I read Warren's book (or more likely a book about Warren), I would want to know how she treats the people who work for her. Is she humane?

By the way, she's going to be on Rachel's show tonight, and it will be interesting to see how she responds to the inevitable question about running for President in 2016.

[Jimmy]

Rachel takes her at her word like we all should be doing.

[Mark]

Jimmy wrote: "Rachel takes her at her word like we all should be doing."

I absolutely take her at her word (though my fantasy scenario would have been a great "fake-out" of the sort we've discussed). I only wish she could be prevailed upon to change her mind. In truth, in my view, the people who can most be trusted with power are the ones who don't want it -- at least, not for its own sake.

[Mark]

Mary, dogs "generally are more loving and loyal than people," and I have owned pets I have greatly loved. But there's not one of them I would not have sacrificed for a member of my own species. It is a position that will doubtless attract disfavor, even among many liberals, but my feeling is that, until such time as there are no remaining starving, oppressed, unnecessarily critically ill and healthcare-deprived human beings on this planet (and save for purposes of preserving whole species), a good deal of time and money that is spent is misdirected, if it is not being spent on saving the lives of human beings. And I am vaguely suspicious of people who (lIke your "wicked witch") appear to be capable of loving only affectionate lower mammals, while exhibiting no such interest in their fellow humans (as odious and atrocious as I, myself, often find the conduct of some of my genomic brethren). Don't misunderstand me: I love dogs and cats, and could never personally harm even a lab rat or a goldfish, but I feel strongly that Mary is right about the importance of prioritizing the welfare of other human beings over that of our pets.

(I want to make it clear, though, that I do strongly support efforts to rescue members of sentient and highly intelligent species such as chimps and cetaceans (whales and dolphins, e.g.), since they are, in many of the important ways, "human," after a fashion. "Humanity" doesn't, in my view, only consist in the possession of a certain genome.)

[Dan]

I've had nine dogs, five as a kid and four as an adult. Except for a brief period I haven't been without a dog for 30 years. I have loved them, but never put them on the same plane as humans - just one step below. My current - and almost certainly my last - dog is about 15 years old and pretty much on her last legs. I don't expect to last another year. Three of the four dogs were rescued by my daughter, including the one I have now.

I don't want to make a bigger deal about dogs than I intended in my comment about Warren. They have their place, and good ones - and most are good - enrich lives. There is something to how people treat them. It has been well-documented that serial killers almost always were cruel to animals when they were kids.

It also is understandable for some people to be fearful because of experiences as kids. My wife was attacked by a large dog when she was a kid and she had some concerns, some wariness. But she got over it.

And I think there are breeds, like pit bulls, German shepherds, and a couple others, that are risky as family pets, particularly pit bulls.

I am a big fan of hounds and working dogs, retrievers, labs, etc. They make great pets, great companions and can be a lots of fun. They also are affectionate and loyal and good with kids.

I think Warren was fairly honest about some of her faults, and she clearly has some, but nothing serious or disqualifying. She is a driven person, but not in a personally ambitious way. She is purpose-driven and that is what makes her so dangerous to the bankers. She cannot be bought off. She cannot be diverted from her mission. She will not compromise her basic principles for political gain. I think she really could succeed Ted Kennedy as the "lion" of the Senate.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: " She is a driven person, but not in a personally ambitious way. She is purpose-driven and that is what makes her so dangerous to the bankers. She cannot be bought off. She cannot be diverted from her mission. She will not compromise her basic principles for political gain. I think she really could succeed Ted Kennedy as the "lion" of the Senate. .."

I think this is the best description I've read of Warren, and it's what makes me want her so desperately as president, though I agree that she's redoubtable in the Senate, and would make a worthy successor to Ted Kennedy in that "leonine" role you describe -- presuming, always, that Democrats were able to regain power or even retain any leverage in the Senate. Still, how many "purpose-driven" and apparently incorruptible potential presidents are there, in the political sphere? That said, on reflection, I think those are precisely the qualities that have generally led to the "removal" of presidents, and other important political figures. So it gives one pause. I'd certainly rather have a live incorruptible senator than a martyred incorruptible president -- and I honestly believe there is no length to which bankers and other plutocrats will not go. I really cannot think of a more dangerous combination of qualities to have than brilliance combined with incorruptibility.

[Mary]

The very flawed Ted Kennedy was my favorite Senator. He clearly loved being a Senator, which is why he was so good at it. He's probably the first person that I saw run for President when he didn't really want the job; he was running because he was expected to run and probably some establishment Democrats wanted him to run against outsider Carter since they couldn't stand him. Ted's race was doomed not so much by his marital problems or by the difficulty of running against an incumbent from his own party but by that awful interview with Roger Mudd (I think that was the journalist's name). When Mudd asked him why he wanted to be President, Ted didn't have an answer, probably because he didn't want to be President.

Warren also clearly is not interested in being President; she seems to enjoy being a Senator, which means she'll be good at it. I think it's true of any job, whether it's teaching, being a lawyer, or being in Congress. If we're doing that job because we see it as the way to get a better job (like Obama, Cruz, Paul, H. Clinton, and Rubio), we won't be as good as the people who see that job as the end and not the means.

I think how we feel about pets and what kinds of pets we like has a lot to do with our childhood. My friend who loves big black dogs (she's had at least two; I think they are Labs, but I'm clueless about most breeds) is a petite (under 5') white woman; I assume that she had a beloved big black dog in her childhood. I have another friend who was an only child, raised by older parents, and she said that her first dog kept her company when she was small, so now she, of course, adores her two little dogs.

Because of my childhood and adolescent experiences, I associated indoor pets with whites and privilege during my youth. When I was in my early twenties, I would accuse black friends or family members who had dogs in the house of being "bourgie" and "assimilated." We weren't allowed to have dogs in the projects, and the black people (all working-class) who had dogs in Kentucky kept them outside. Now I might be the opposite of Dan; in my new grandmotherly, hooked-on-cute stage, I might end up with one of those expensive-looking, little furry white dogs (a toy poodle maybe). When she was a few years older than I am, my maternal grandmother, who for most of her life was so scared of dogs that she carried a stick with her to beat them off when she walked more than two blocks from home, got a dog, a mutt, when she no longer had a human living with her, and was so devoted to him that she wouldn't stay away from home more than a couple of days because she had to "get back and see about my dog."

Still, I'm suspicious of politicians telling "shaggy dog" stories. It's such a cliché, Dan, that Maryland Republican Michael Steel mocked it in a funny ad when he was running for the Senate in 2006. He said he loved puppies. The point he was making is that anyone who likes puppies will be seen as nice, and anyone who doesn't will be seen as evil.

I say the evil people are those who treat people worse than they do animals. If I correspond again with my second favorite comedian, the somewhat misanthropic Bill Maher, I'm going to congratulate him on his work with PETA and then ask what other "humanitarian" work he's doing. Is he working with the Bridges brothers to try to end hunger, for instance? There are plenty of people who need help, but most of them are not as cute or loving as pets.

[Jimmy]

Here's a comparison: Ralph Nader and Elizabeth Warren.

Ralph Nader could have run for the Senate as a Democrat. If he won, he could have fought for consumer protection laws. He could have focused on his strengths. Instead, he screwed up two elections and refuses to admit to it. (Please spare me the whole both parties are the same schtick.)

Ms. Warren is doing great in the Senate. Let her do her thing. She will know if she ever feels comfortable running for President.